Sentences with phrase «provisions on citizenship»

36 The referring court asks whether the fact that the applicant for a residence permit lives together with his spouse, is not the biological father of the child who is a Union citizen, and does not have custody of the child may affect the interpretation to be given to the provisions on citizenship of the Union.

Not exact matches

These migrants» rights are largely found in the Citizenship Directive, and are the basis for the provisions on Citizens» rights in the draft Brexit Withdrawal Treaty.

Such a decision is ostensibly justifiable on the basis of the identified «penumbra of uncertainty» in the interpretation of the positive law provisions of Article 8 TEU, Article 20 TFEU and Article 50 TEU, and the conception of EU citizenship that has been constructed in the judicial pronouncements upon these legal sources.

The disclaimer in the next sentence delineating the «additionality» of EU citizenship and confirming that it shall «not replace national citizenship» was iteratively addended to the provision at Treaty amendments in response to political concerns of certain Member States with regard to the original Article 8a of the Maastricht Treaty (see the «Edinburgh Declaration on citizenship of the Union» by the Kingdom of Denmark).

Still, while that provision was once thought to make Union citizenship dependent on national citizenship, in Rottmann the Court turned it neatly around, showing how it made national citizenship equally dependent on EU law.

On February 6, 2014, the federal government tabled Bill C - 24, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts to update eligibility requirements for Canadian citizenship, strengthen security and fraud provisions and amend provisions governing the processing of applications and the review ofCitizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts to update eligibility requirements for Canadian citizenship, strengthen security and fraud provisions and amend provisions governing the processing of applications and the review ofcitizenship, strengthen security and fraud provisions and amend provisions governing the processing of applications and the review of decisions.

Sir David Edward, a considerable authority given his 15 years of experience as the British Judge in Luxembourg, has elaborated a contemporary version of the «good faith» argument by relying on Article 50 TEU and the citizenship provisions.

On the grounds of the arguments analogous to those upon which it has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 4 (wording of 15 March 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its form, with Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 5 (wording of 18 July 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laOn the grounds of the arguments analogous to those upon which it has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 4 (wording of 15 March 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its form, with Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 5 (wording of 18 July 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laOn the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its form, with Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 5 (wording of 18 July 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laon Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its form, with Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 5 (wording of 18 July 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laOn the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laon Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

It has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that upon the entry into force of the Constitution, the legislature had the constitutional duty to regulate the citizenship relations of the Republic of Lithuania, inter alia, to correct the legal regulation established in the Law on Citizenship (wording of 5 December 1991 with subsequent amendments and supplements, made prior to the entry into force of the 1992 Constitution) and the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 so that this legal regulation would comply with the provisions of the Constitution, inter alia, Article citizenship relations of the Republic of Lithuania, inter alia, to correct the legal regulation established in the Law on Citizenship (wording of 5 December 1991 with subsequent amendments and supplements, made prior to the entry into force of the 1992 Constitution) and the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 so that this legal regulation would comply with the provisions of the Constitution, inter alia, Article 12 thereoon Citizenship (wording of 5 December 1991 with subsequent amendments and supplements, made prior to the entry into force of the 1992 Constitution) and the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 so that this legal regulation would comply with the provisions of the Constitution, inter alia, Article Citizenship (wording of 5 December 1991 with subsequent amendments and supplements, made prior to the entry into force of the 1992 Constitution) and the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 so that this legal regulation would comply with the provisions of the Constitution, inter alia, Article 12 thereoOn the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 so that this legal regulation would comply with the provisions of the Constitution, inter alia, Article 12 thereoon Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 so that this legal regulation would comply with the provisions of the Constitution, inter alia, Article Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 so that this legal regulation would comply with the provisions of the Constitution, inter alia, Article 12 thereof.

In addition, on the grounds of the arguments analogous to those upon which it has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 4 (wording of 15 March 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «provided that all the specified persons have not repatriated» of Paragraph 3 (wording of 7 December 1993) of Article 18 of the Law on Citizenship and the provision «provided that they have not repatriated from Lithuania» of Item 1 (wording of 5 December 1991) of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of this law were in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laon the grounds of the arguments analogous to those upon which it has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 4 (wording of 15 March 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «provided that all the specified persons have not repatriated» of Paragraph 3 (wording of 7 December 1993) of Article 18 of the Law on Citizenship and the provision «provided that they have not repatriated from Lithuania» of Item 1 (wording of 5 December 1991) of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of this law were in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laOn the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «provided that all the specified persons have not repatriated» of Paragraph 3 (wording of 7 December 1993) of Article 18 of the Law on Citizenship and the provision «provided that they have not repatriated from Lithuania» of Item 1 (wording of 5 December 1991) of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of this law were in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laon Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «provided that all the specified persons have not repatriated» of Paragraph 3 (wording of 7 December 1993) of Article 18 of the Law on Citizenship and the provision «provided that they have not repatriated from Lithuania» of Item 1 (wording of 5 December 1991) of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of this law were in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laon Citizenship and the provision «provided that they have not repatriated from Lithuania» of Item 1 (wording of 5 December 1991) of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of this law were in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

On the grounds of the arguments analogous to those upon which it has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 4 (wording of 15 March 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 5 (wording of 18 July 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laOn the grounds of the arguments analogous to those upon which it has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 4 (wording of 15 March 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 5 (wording of 18 July 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laOn the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 5 (wording of 18 July 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laon Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 5 (wording of 18 July 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laOn the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laon Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

-- the provision «the following persons shall retain the right to citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania for an indefinite period of time: (1) persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren (provided that said persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have not repatriated), who are residing in other states» of Paragraph 1 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Article 17 of the Law on Citizenship, to the extent that, according to the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, it entrenches that the right to citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania shall not be retained to the persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren, provided that said persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have repatriated, and who are residing in other states, is not in conflict with Article 29 and Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rcitizenship of the Republic of Lithuania for an indefinite period of time: (1) persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren (provided that said persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have not repatriated), who are residing in other states» of Paragraph 1 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Article 17 of the Law on Citizenship, to the extent that, according to the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, it entrenches that the right to citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania shall not be retained to the persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren, provided that said persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have repatriated, and who are residing in other states, is not in conflict with Article 29 and Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rcitizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren (provided that said persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have not repatriated), who are residing in other states» of Paragraph 1 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Article 17 of the Law on Citizenship, to the extent that, according to the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, it entrenches that the right to citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania shall not be retained to the persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren, provided that said persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have repatriated, and who are residing in other states, is not in conflict with Article 29 and Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rCitizenship, to the extent that, according to the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, it entrenches that the right to citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania shall not be retained to the persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren, provided that said persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have repatriated, and who are residing in other states, is not in conflict with Article 29 and Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rcitizenship of the Republic of Lithuania shall not be retained to the persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren, provided that said persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have repatriated, and who are residing in other states, is not in conflict with Article 29 and Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rcitizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren, provided that said persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have repatriated, and who are residing in other states, is not in conflict with Article 29 and Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rule of law;

-- the provision «the following persons shall be citizens of the Republic of Lithuania: (1) persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren (provided that said persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have not repatriated)» of Article 1 (wording of 17 September 2002) of the Law on Citizenship, to the extent that, according to the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, it entrenches that the persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren, provided that said persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have repatriated, are not considered as citizens of the Republic of Lithuania, is not in conflict with Article 29 and Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rcitizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren (provided that said persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have not repatriated)» of Article 1 (wording of 17 September 2002) of the Law on Citizenship, to the extent that, according to the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, it entrenches that the persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren, provided that said persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have repatriated, are not considered as citizens of the Republic of Lithuania, is not in conflict with Article 29 and Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rCitizenship, to the extent that, according to the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, it entrenches that the persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren, provided that said persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have repatriated, are not considered as citizens of the Republic of Lithuania, is not in conflict with Article 29 and Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rcitizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren, provided that said persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have repatriated, are not considered as citizens of the Republic of Lithuania, is not in conflict with Article 29 and Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rule of law;

On the grounds of the arguments analogous to those upon which it has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 4 (wording of 15 March 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «provided that said persons and their children have not repatriated from Lithuania» of Item 1 (wording of 6 February 1996) of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of the Law on Citizenship was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laOn the grounds of the arguments analogous to those upon which it has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 4 (wording of 15 March 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «provided that said persons and their children have not repatriated from Lithuania» of Item 1 (wording of 6 February 1996) of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of the Law on Citizenship was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laOn the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «provided that said persons and their children have not repatriated from Lithuania» of Item 1 (wording of 6 February 1996) of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of the Law on Citizenship was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laon Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «provided that said persons and their children have not repatriated from Lithuania» of Item 1 (wording of 6 February 1996) of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of the Law on Citizenship was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laon Citizenship was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

Having held that the provision «provided that these persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have not repatriated» of Item 1 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Paragraph 1 of Article 1 of the Law on Citizenship is in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, the Constitutional Court will not further investigate whether the provision «persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren (provided that these persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have not repatriated) shall be citizens of the Republic of Lithuania» of Article 1 (wording of 17 September 2002) of this law to the extent that, according to the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, it entrenches that persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren provided that these persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren repatriated shall not be considered citizens of the Republic of Lithuania, is not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle Citizenship is in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, the Constitutional Court will not further investigate whether the provision «persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren (provided that these persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have not repatriated) shall be citizens of the Republic of Lithuania» of Article 1 (wording of 17 September 2002) of this law to the extent that, according to the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, it entrenches that persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren provided that these persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren repatriated shall not be considered citizens of the Republic of Lithuania, is not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren (provided that these persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have not repatriated) shall be citizens of the Republic of Lithuania» of Article 1 (wording of 17 September 2002) of this law to the extent that, according to the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, it entrenches that persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren provided that these persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren repatriated shall not be considered citizens of the Republic of Lithuania, is not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren provided that these persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren repatriated shall not be considered citizens of the Republic of Lithuania, is not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of justice.

It has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 4 (wording of 15 March 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laOn the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laon Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

Having held that the provision «provided that these persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have not repatriated» of Item 1 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of the Law on Citizenship is in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, the Constitutional Court will not further investigate whether the provision «the following persons shall retain the right to citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania for an indefinite period of time: (1) persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren (provided that said persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have not repatriated), who are residing in other states» of Paragraph 1 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Article 17 of this law to the extent that, according to the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, it entrenches that the right to citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania shall not be retained to persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren who reside in other states, provided that these persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have repatriated, is not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle Citizenship is in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, the Constitutional Court will not further investigate whether the provision «the following persons shall retain the right to citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania for an indefinite period of time: (1) persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren (provided that said persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have not repatriated), who are residing in other states» of Paragraph 1 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Article 17 of this law to the extent that, according to the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, it entrenches that the right to citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania shall not be retained to persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren who reside in other states, provided that these persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have repatriated, is not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania for an indefinite period of time: (1) persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren (provided that said persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have not repatriated), who are residing in other states» of Paragraph 1 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Article 17 of this law to the extent that, according to the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, it entrenches that the right to citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania shall not be retained to persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren who reside in other states, provided that these persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have repatriated, is not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren (provided that said persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have not repatriated), who are residing in other states» of Paragraph 1 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Article 17 of this law to the extent that, according to the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, it entrenches that the right to citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania shall not be retained to persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren who reside in other states, provided that these persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have repatriated, is not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania shall not be retained to persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren who reside in other states, provided that these persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have repatriated, is not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren who reside in other states, provided that these persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have repatriated, is not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of justice.

ON THE COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE LEGAL ACTS REGULATING THE CITIZENSHIP RELATIONS WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA

On the grounds of the arguments analogous to those upon which it has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 4 (wording of 15 March 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was (as was Paragraph 3 (wordings of 19 October 1995 and 2 July 1997) of Article 1 of the Law «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship») in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also Paragraph 2 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Article 2 of the Law on the Procedure for Implementation of the Law on Citizenship is in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laOn the grounds of the arguments analogous to those upon which it has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 4 (wording of 15 March 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was (as was Paragraph 3 (wordings of 19 October 1995 and 2 July 1997) of Article 1 of the Law «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship») in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also Paragraph 2 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Article 2 of the Law on the Procedure for Implementation of the Law on Citizenship is in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laOn the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was (as was Paragraph 3 (wordings of 19 October 1995 and 2 July 1997) of Article 1 of the Law «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship») in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also Paragraph 2 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Article 2 of the Law on the Procedure for Implementation of the Law on Citizenship is in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laon Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was (as was Paragraph 3 (wordings of 19 October 1995 and 2 July 1997) of Article 1 of the Law «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship») in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also Paragraph 2 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Article 2 of the Law on the Procedure for Implementation of the Law on Citizenship is in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laOn the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship») in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also Paragraph 2 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Article 2 of the Law on the Procedure for Implementation of the Law on Citizenship is in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laon Citizenship») in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also Paragraph 2 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Article 2 of the Law on the Procedure for Implementation of the Law on Citizenship is in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laon the Procedure for Implementation of the Law on Citizenship is in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laon Citizenship is in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

To recognise that the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland or settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 4 (wording of 15 March 1994, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1994, No. 22 - 347) of Item 2 of the Republic of Lithuania Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its form, with Article 12 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, and, as to its content, it was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laOn the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its form, with Article 12 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, and, as to its content, it was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laon Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its form, with Article 12 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, and, as to its content, it was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

On the grounds of the arguments analogous to those upon which it has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 4 (wording of 15 March 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also Paragraph 3 (wording of 19 October 1995) of Article 1 of the Law «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laOn the grounds of the arguments analogous to those upon which it has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 4 (wording of 15 March 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also Paragraph 3 (wording of 19 October 1995) of Article 1 of the Law «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laOn the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also Paragraph 3 (wording of 19 October 1995) of Article 1 of the Law «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laon Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also Paragraph 3 (wording of 19 October 1995) of Article 1 of the Law «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laOn the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of laon Citizenship» was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

Having established this framework, a second post will address the particular issue of accession to the EU and evaluate the opinion in light of contrary arguments based on EU citizenship provisions and Article 50 TEU.

Notable cases in which Pierre was involved included an appeal against deprivation of citizenship on national security grounds following remittal to SIAC by the Supreme Court in the case of Pham («B2»); an appeal concerning registration under the statelessness provisions of the British Nationality Act 1981 in the case of MK (India); three out of hours applications for injunctions successfully preventing same - day removal and numerous challenges to Home Office policy and the Immigration Rules.

35 By its questions, which should be examined together, the referring court essentially asks whether the provisions of European Union law on citizenship of the Union must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from refusing to grant a third country national a residence permit on the basis of family reunification where that national seeks to reside with his spouse, who is also a third country national and resides lawfully in that Member State and is the mother of a child from a previous marriage who is a Union citizen, and with the child of their own marriage, who is also a third country national.

On December 16, 2005, the Alberta Human Rights Panel (now the tribunal) found that Walsh was indeed discriminated against based on her gender, contrary to the equal pay and terms of conditions of employment provisions of sections six and seven of the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act (now referred to as the Alberta Human Rights ActOn December 16, 2005, the Alberta Human Rights Panel (now the tribunal) found that Walsh was indeed discriminated against based on her gender, contrary to the equal pay and terms of conditions of employment provisions of sections six and seven of the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act (now referred to as the Alberta Human Rights Acton her gender, contrary to the equal pay and terms of conditions of employment provisions of sections six and seven of the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act (now referred to as the Alberta Human Rights Act).